4.5 Article

Collateral Projections Innervate the Mammillary Bodies and Retrosplenial Cortex: A New Category of Hippocampal Cells

期刊

ENEURO
卷 5, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0383-17.2018

关键词

anterior thalamic nuclei; cingulate cortex; episodic memory; fornix; subiculum

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust [103722/Z14/Z, WT090954AIA]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To understand the hippocampus, it is necessary to understand the subiculum. Unlike other hippocampal subfields, the subiculum projects to almost all distal hippocampal targets, highlighting its critical importance for external networks. The present studies, in male rats and mice, reveal a new category of dorsal subiculum neurons that innervate both the mammillary bodies (MBs) and the retrosplenial cortex (RSP). These bifurcating neurons comprise almost half of the hippocampal cells that project to RSP. The termination of these numerous collateral projections was visualized within the medial mammillary nucleus and the granular RSP (area 29). These collateral projections included subiculum efferents that cross to the contralateral MBs. Within the granular RSP, the collateral projections form a particularly dense plexus in deep Layer II and Layer III. This retrosplenial termination site colocalized with markers for VGluT2 and neurotensin. While efferents from the hippocampal CA fields standardly collateralize, subiculum projections often have only one target site. Consequently, the many collateral projections involving the RSP and the MBs present a relatively unusual pattern for the subiculum, which presumably relates to how both targets have complementary roles in spatial processing. Furthermore, along with the anterior thalamic nuclei, the MBs and RSP are key members of a memory circuit, which is usually described as both starting and finishing in the hippocampus. The present findings reveal how the hippocampus simultaneously engages different parts of this circuit, so forcing an important revision of this network.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据